SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
- Thread starter
- #41
I still fail to see where you have corrected the OP's study which concluded that warming would take place at a greater rate than previously assumed. What fundamental mistake did you find had been made by Daniel R. Feldman, Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, William D. Collins, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, Robert Pincus, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Xianglei Huang and Xiuhong Chen both of Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Michigan (not to mention their PNAS reviewers)? That they were unfamiliar with Kirchoff's Law? Is that correct?
Because, for the 3rd time doofus, if the rate of emissivity is lower then the rate of absorptivity is lower....the asshat doing the paper is still assuming that the rate of absorptivity has not changed from the 100% that the models claim....if absorptivity is lower, how does lower emissivity equal warming?